Learning curve for adoption of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review of oncological, clinical, and efficiency outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is gaining increasing popularity as an operative approach. Learning curves to achieve surgical competency in robotic-assisted techniques have shown significant variation in learning curve lengths and outcomes. This study aimed to summarize the current literature on learning curves for RAMIE. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched, and articles reporting on learning curves in RAMIE were identified and scrutinized. Studies were eligible if they reported changes in operative outcomes over time, or learning curves, for surgeons newly adopting RAMIE. RESULTS: Fifteen studies reporting on 1767 patients were included. Nine studies reported on surgeons with prior experience of robot-assisted surgery prior to adopting RAMIE, with only four studies outlining a specified RAMIE adoption pathway. Learning curves were most commonly analyzed using cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) and were typically reported for lymph node yields and operative times, with significant variation in learning curve lengths (18-73 cases and 20-80 cases, respectively). Most studies reported adoption without significant impact on clinical outcomes such as anastomotic leak; significant learning curves were more likely in studies, which did not report a formal learning or adoption pathway. CONCLUSION: Reported RAMIE adoption phases are variable, with some authors suggesting significant impact to patients. With robust training through formal programmes or proctorship, however, others report RAMIE adoption without impact on clinical outcomes. A formalized adoption curriculum appears critical to prevent adverse effects on operative efficiency and patient care.

Systematic review: robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease. In the context of the increasing uptake of robotic surgery, robotic cholecystectomy has seen a substantial growth over the past decades. Despite this, a formal assessment of the evidence for this practice remains elusive and a randomised controlled trial is yet to be performed. This paper reviews the evidence to date for robotic multiport cholecystectomy compared to conventional multiport cholecystectomy. This systematic review was performed conducted using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases; in line with the PRISMA guideline. All articles that compared robotic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The studies were assessed with regards to operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and complications. Fourteen studies were included, describing a total of 3002 patients. There was no difference in operative blood loss, complication rates, incidence of bile duct injury or length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. The operative time for robotic cholecystectomy was longer, whereas the risk of conversion to open surgery was lower. There was marked variation in definitions of measured outcomes, and most studies lacked data on training and quality assessment, leading to substantial heterogeneity of the data. Available evidence on multiport robotic cholecystectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is scarce and the quality of the available studies is generally poor. Results suggest longer operating time for robotic cholecystectomy, although many studies included the learning curve period. Postoperative recovery and complications were similar in both groups.